4.5 Article

Developing teaching skills for medical educators in Russia: a cross-cultural faculty development project

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 41, 期 3, 页码 318-324

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02676.x

关键词

teaching, methods; Russia; United States; education, medical, methods; professional practice; educational measurement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Context: Faculty development programmes have proved successful for improving teaching skills. We investigated whether or not a successful US-based faculty development programme for improving the teaching skills of medical faculty could be transported to Russia. Methods: Five seminars, based on the 7 categories of the Stanford Faculty Development Program model, were presented to 48 teachers at Kazan State Medical University in Kazan, Russia. The seminars were comprised of mini-lectures, reviews of actual videotaped teaching scenario re-enactments, interactive role plays of teaching situations, and personalised goal setting for future teaching performance. Evaluation was performed through participants' self-reported ratings of teaching ability based on a retrospective pretest/post-test questionnaire and fulfilment of commitment of change (CTC) statements written by workshop participants. Outcomes were measured at both 1 and 12 months post-intervention. Results: Survey response rates were 98% (47/48) at 1 month and 81% (39/48) at 12 months. Global teaching performance improved (pretest = 38.4, 1 month post-test = 43.7, 12 months post-test = 42.5; P < 0.001) as did ratings of specific teaching behaviours (pretest = 100.2, 1 month post-test = 121.3, 12 months post-test = 116.8; P < 0.001). A total of 127 CTC statements were made and 90 (71%) were successfully instituted. Conclusions: Our faculty development intervention demonstrated a positive, lasting effect on the teaching skills of Russian faculty members. This suggests that our efforts in transporting this intervention across the 2 cultures were successful.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据